1 of 1- forsberg_us
- Administrator
Offline - Registered: 9/08/2010
- Posts: 9,944
Moving on to the next trial
Any early predictions on the Clemens trial? I assume this won't be televised (I don't think federal courts allow it) so I suspect we're only going to get the snippets that are reported.
First piece of information from opening statements, the gov't will provide evidence that the needles and swabs McNamee provided tested positive for Clemens' DNA and steroids. No lidocain or B-12. Clemens attorneys say McNamee manufactured the evidence.
I was wrong about Casey Anthony, but I'll take a stab at this one--I think if Clemens doesn't testify, he's toast. It's a perjury trial. If he doesn't testify (and early signs from his defense team were that he probably wouldn't), I think the jury concludes he's hiding something and afraid to testify again for fear of commiting perjury again.
- APIAD
- Administrator
Offline
- From: Central IL
- Registered: 9/07/2010
- Posts: 11,096
Re: Moving on to the next trial
I think he is toast because the jury is made up of 10 women and 2 men. Clemens is a douce and they will have a hard time covering that fact up. Didnt he claim that the HGH was for his wife? I doubt in the long run he gets punished much. IMO he should not have been on the stand in the first place.
Fors if Clemens testify's he is in a catch 22. He can either testify that he never took steroids and come off as a lier or testify that he lied the first time around and prove himself guilty. I really dont know much of the facts in this case. Where those needles ever allowed in? That is damning but on the other hand why would someone keep anothers used needles?
Last edited by APRTW (7/13/2011 2:24 pm)
- APIAD
- Administrator
Offline
- From: Central IL
- Registered: 9/07/2010
- Posts: 11,096
Re: Moving on to the next trial
On the other hand Bonds got away with it and that case was just as much of a slam-dunk. I think the jury can be sympathetic to such cases. It isnt a murder case and the fact that Bonds did or didnt take steroids doesnt really matter outside of baseball. I am sure the jury can see how they would not like to be put on stand and forced to admitt their mistakes.
- artie_fufkin
- Administrator
Offline
- From: God's Little Acre
- Registered: 9/08/2010
- Posts: 22,429
Re: Moving on to the next trial
Clemens' problem all along has been he's thinks he's smart when he's really an idiot. A smart person never would have allowed another person to inject him with steroids. A smart person would have destroyed any physical evidence of steroid use. A smart person would have never put himself in position to perjure himself before Congress. A smart person wouldn't have lied under oath.
So I fully expect Clemens will do the opposite of a what a smart person would do and take the stand.
Last edited by artie_fufkin (7/13/2011 2:46 pm)
- artie_fufkin
- Administrator
Offline
- From: God's Little Acre
- Registered: 9/08/2010
- Posts: 22,429
Re: Moving on to the next trial
I should have probably explained that I have no interest in the machinations or outcome of this trial. Roger Clemens is, and will always be, nothing to me. He's a waste of oxygen whose one notable quality in life was an ability at one time to throw a baseball 95 mph. Take away that, and he would have overachieved in life if he had landed a job mopping the floor of an empty warehouse in some Texas town.
He was irrelevant before he ever picked up a baseball, he was irrelevant as a baseball player, he's supremely irrelevant as a former baseball player, and he's irrelevant as a human being, just as his baseball numbers will be forever tainted with the "yeah, but ..." qualifier.
Last edited by artie_fufkin (7/13/2011 3:00 pm)
- forsberg_us
- Administrator
Offline
- Registered: 9/08/2010
- Posts: 9,944
Re: Moving on to the next trial
"Where those needles ever allowed in?"
Yes, they're in. The prosecution apparently showed pictures of them during opening statements and mentioned the results of the forensic analysis. Clemens' side is sticking to the B-12 and lidocain theory.
I think the Pettitte testimony sinks him, but I had forgot about his wife. Yeah, he's going to look like a buffoon with the "I allowed him to inject my wife with steroids, but I never took them" defense.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Clemens appear before Congress voluntarily. I seem to remember he wasn't under subpoena, or am I making that up.
- •
Thread Starter
- artie_fufkin
- Administrator
Offline
- From: God's Little Acre
- Registered: 9/08/2010
- Posts: 22,429
Re: Moving on to the next trial
"He was not subpoenaed"
See? Idiot.
- forsberg_us
- Administrator
Offline
- Registered: 9/08/2010
- Posts: 9,944
Re: Moving on to the next trial
It takes a special combination of stupidity and arrogance to voluntarily appear before Congress and provide false testimony while under oath. Clearly his ego convinced him that because he was Roger Clemens and Brian McNamee was a nobody, there wasn't even the slightest chance that he wouldn't be believed.
I realize there are far worse people and far worse crimes being committed on a daily basis, but I would laugh my ass off if Clemens ends up facing serious jail time when this thing winds down. The federal sentencing guidelines tend to be pretty unforgiving. I doubt that the guidelines list "Pompous prick" among the aggravating circumstances, but if ever there was a time when that designation would apply, it's this case.
It's also going to be pretty interesting to hear the debate when he becomes eligible for the HoF. You'd have a difficult time convincing me that he voluntarily testified for any reason other than to clear his name and bolster his HoF standing.
- •
Thread Starter- artie_fufkin
- Administrator
Offline
- From: God's Little Acre
- Registered: 9/08/2010
- Posts: 22,429
Re: Moving on to the next trial
"the prosecution show a piece of video from he 2008 hearing that th judge ruled inadmissible."
Ok, I'm stumped. Why would a judge rule as inadmissible video of the hearing that led to perjury charge being brought in the first place?
That's like telling the jury: "He's on trial for lying, but we're not allowed to show you the actual physical evidence of him making false statements."
Did the judge ask Clemens for an autograph before the trial started, like those impartial Congressmen did before he testified?
If there's no other alternative, the prosecution ought to show video of him throwing at his own kid's head during batting practice and say "Would a man who behaves like this think twice about lying to cover his arse?" and then just close their case.
- Max
- Colby Rasmus
Offline
- From: Pacific Northwest
- Registered: 9/07/2010
- Posts: 5,269
Re: Moving on to the next trial
APRTW wrote:
Didnt he claim that the HGH was for his wife?
Now see, I thought it was for the 17 year old that he met in the bar, so that just goes t show you how little I know about this case.
- forsberg_us
- Administrator
Offline
- Registered: 9/08/2010
- Posts: 9,944
Re: Moving on to the next trial
"Ok, I'm stumped. Why would a judge rule as inadmissible video of the hearing that led to perjury charge being brought in the first place?"
The video of the hearing isn't inadmissible in total.
The prosecution wanted to call Pettitte's wife to testify about a conversation during which Pettitte allegedly told her about a conversation during which Clemens allegedly admitted using HGH. The problem is that Pettitte's wife didn't hear Clemens make the statement. Clemens' statement is admissible as an admission or a statement against interest and Pettitte will be allowed to testify about it. Pettitte's statement to his wife, however, is hearsay and isn't admissible. The prosecution was hoping that the jury would find Pettitte's testimony more believable if they heard he told his wife about the conversation, but you can't attempt to bolster a witness' testimony with inadmissible evidence.
Apparently the prosecution showed a clip from the hearing during which one of the congressmen made reference to, or read from Laura Pettitte's affidavit regarding the conversation with Pettitte about the conversation with Clemens. Since the judge had already ruled that Laura Pettitte couldn't testify, playing an excerpt of the hearing that made reference to her testimony was really stupid. To make matters worse, when the judge called the lawyers up to the bench to discuss, the video was stopped at a point where the text from Laura Pettitte's affidavit appeared at the bottom of the screen.
The potential consequences of this mistake is pretty serious. If the judge thinks the prosecutors intentionally disregarded his earlier ruling, he can refuse to allow a new trial. Double jeopardy generally attaches once a jury is seated. If a mistrial occurs due to inadvertance, a new trial is permitted. But if this is deemed intentional prosecutorial misconduct, this thing could be over.
Last edited by forsberg_us (7/14/2011 3:04 pm)
- •
Thread Starter- artie_fufkin
- Administrator
Offline
- From: God's Little Acre
- Registered: 9/08/2010
- Posts: 22,429
Re: Moving on to the next trial
"Clemens' statement is admissible as an admission or a statement against interest and Pettitte will be allowed to testify about it. Pettitte's statement to his wife, however, is hearsay and isn't admissible. The prosecution was hoping that the jury would find Pettitte's testimony more believable if they heard he told his wife about the conversation, but you can't attempt to bolster a witness' testimony with inadmissible evidence."
Shouldn't the prosecution have predicted Pettitte's wife's testimony would be deemed hearsay? I mean that's practically the definition.
It leads me to believe either the feds don't have much of a case, or they're morons.
- forsberg_us
- Administrator
Offline
- Registered: 9/08/2010
- Posts: 9,944
Re: Moving on to the next trial
"Clemens' statement is admissible as an admission or a statement against interest and Pettitte will be allowed to testify about it. Pettitte's statement to his wife, however, is hearsay and isn't admissible. The prosecution was hoping that the jury would find Pettitte's testimony more believable if they heard he told his wife about the conversation, but you can't attempt to bolster a witness' testimony with inadmissible evidence."
Shouldn't the prosecution have predicted Pettitte's wife's testimony would be deemed hearsay? I mean that's practically the definition.
It leads me to believe either the feds don't have much of a case, or they're morons.
It's actually worse than that. Before a trial starts, parties file Motions in Limine which is a motion to exclude evidence the other side may use. Pettitte's wife's testimony was one of the items that was the subject of a motion in limine and which the judge had already ruled inadmissible.
Obviously, this is a huge case, and there are probably a dozen attorneys working on it. They knew they intended to play the videotape that was shown today. Someone in the prosector's office was supposed to have vetted the video to make sure nothing improper was on it. That person either missed it and made a huge mistake or they intentionally left it in hoping to get a limiting instruction rather than a mistrial. From what little I know, it seems the prosecution has a strong case, so I have to assume this was a really bad mistake. But it's a mistake that might cost someone their job if the judge doesn't allow a new trial.
One thing I have heard mentioned is the excellent job done by Clemens' attorneys. They likely knew what was coming on the video, and obviously knew the judge's pretrial ruling. They could have objected right away, the video would have been stopped and the trial continued. Instead they let it go, waited for the judge to halt the trial and then moved for a mistrial under the theory that the jury had been exposed to too much of the inadmissible testimony that a limiting instruction wouldn't suffice and a mistrial was the proper remedy.
Worst case, they start the trial over. Best case, they won the case. That a no-lose proposition.
- •
Thread Starter- APIAD
- Administrator
Offline
- From: Central IL
- Registered: 9/07/2010
- Posts: 11,096
Re: Moving on to the next trial
Is it considered legal strategy to ask questions that you know will be objected to just to get the thought in the juries head. The judge can tell the jury to disregard but you cant unhear or unsee something. I thought in the Anthony Case the defense was able to put alot of ideas out there that the judge told the jury to disregard.
- forsberg_us
- Administrator
Offline
- Registered: 9/08/2010
- Posts: 9,944
Re: Moving on to the next trial
Is it considered legal strategy to ask questions that you know will be objected to just to get the thought in the juries head. The judge can tell the jury to disregard but you cant unhear or unsee something. I thought in the Anthony Case the defense was able to put alot of ideas out there that the judge told the jury to disregard.
Somewhat. That's the idea behind a limiting instruction. The judge will instruct the jury to disregard something, which just brings extra attention to it. The risk is if you cross the line, the judge may admonish you in front of the jury which really makes you look bad, or do something like what happened today.
- •
Thread Starter- artie_fufkin
- Administrator
Offline
- From: God's Little Acre
- Registered: 9/08/2010
- Posts: 22,429
Re: Moving on to the next trial
"Worst case, they start the trial over. Best case, they won the case. That a no-lose proposition."
I understand there are rules of law, but none of this is ultimately germain to the overall point of whether Clemens is guilty, which of course he is. To not order a new trial would be an injustice. His shouldn't be allowed to get away with perjury because, under one of the plausible scenarios, some jerkward intern can't edit a video tape properly.
- APIAD
- Administrator
Offline
- From: Central IL
- Registered: 9/07/2010
- Posts: 11,096
Re: Moving on to the next trial
Is it considered legal strategy to ask questions that you know will be objected to just to get the thought in the juries head. The judge can tell the jury to disregard but you cant unhear or unsee something. I thought in the Anthony Case the defense was able to put alot of ideas out there that the judge told the jury to disregard.
Somewhat. That's the idea behind a limiting instruction. The judge will instruct the jury to disregard something, which just brings extra attention to it. The risk is if you cross the line, the judge may admonish you in front of the jury which really makes you look bad, or do something like what happened today.
It seems that the prosecution is held to a higher standard. The judge can throw the case out and Clemens gets off if they screw up. However it isnt like Clemens can be found automatically guilty if he defense made the same kind of violation.
- APIAD
- Administrator
Offline
- From: Central IL
- Registered: 9/07/2010
- Posts: 11,096
Re: Moving on to the next trial
"Worst case, they start the trial over. Best case, they won the case. That a no-lose proposition."
I understand there are rules of law, but none of this is ultimately germain to the overall point of whether Clemens is guilty, which of course he is. To not order a new trial would be an injustice. His shouldn't be allowed to get away with perjury because, under one of the plausible scenarios, some jerkward intern can't edit a video tape properly.
I know in the Anthony trial most of te video and evidence was viewed by the judge and admitted into evidence before the jury was allowed to see it.
- forsberg_us
- Administrator
Offline
- Registered: 9/08/2010
- Posts: 9,944
Re: Moving on to the next trial
Is it considered legal strategy to ask questions that you know will be objected to just to get the thought in the juries head. The judge can tell the jury to disregard but you cant unhear or unsee something. I thought in the Anthony Case the defense was able to put alot of ideas out there that the judge told the jury to disregard.
Somewhat. That's the idea behind a limiting instruction. The judge will instruct the jury to disregard something, which just brings extra attention to it. The risk is if you cross the line, the judge may admonish you in front of the jury which really makes you look bad, or do something like what happened today.
It seems that the prosecution is held to a higher standard. The judge can throw the case out and Clemens gets off if they screw up. However it isnt like Clemens can be found automatically guilty if he defense made the same kind of violation.
Welcome to the world of Double Jeopardy. And not the kind that involves Alex Trebek
- •
Thread Starter- Max
- Colby Rasmus
Offline
- From: Pacific Northwest
- Registered: 9/07/2010
- Posts: 5,269
Re: Moving on to the next trial
But if this is deemed intentional prosecutorial misconduct, this thing could be over.
If I were Clemens it would have been worth one of my sacks of money to me to get the prosecutors to 'blow it' like that.
But Clemens probably would not actually have to do anything. If in Indonesia, the way this would have worked is that Clemens defense attorney would know a guy who knows a guy who approaches the prosecutor with a proposition. With the price worked out, the attorneys find a legal way to bill it all to Clemens as something else. Clemens is completely clean, the attorneys are pretty much completely clean, unless they know their books were cooked. The prosecutor is a little bit dirty, depending upon how well it can be proved that there was a quid pro quo for the money and the screw up. The money, for example, could come in something as innocent looking as an advance for a book deal . . . maybe about the trial! The main guilt rests with the two parties who cut the deal, but both of them are at least one step from attorney and prosecutor.